10 June 2009

...it's amazing how this belief isn't extended to Islamic fundamentalism...

I got a predictable response about my comment on a blog which advocated a more moderate GOP. The response was that if the Republicans became any more conservative, that they would advocate a theocracy. Nothing scares liberals more than invoking the name of Jesus, except when Obamessiah mentions it. Perhaps they already know he doesn't mean it, since he's embracing their favorite religion, Islam. When President Bush invoked the name of The Almighty, you could see liberals from Manhattan to WeHo, tremble in their boots. I believe that Bushie was simply a man of faith, that wanted the Lord to ensure he was doing His will. To liberals, the man was only trying to establish a theocracy, despite his many efforts to ensure freedoms for not only Christians, but for everyone worldwide.

Let me be clear, I am not saying that conservatives corner the market on tolerance, but as I continue to preach, our policies actually promote individuality, instead of focusing on people as groups. After peddling her notion that conservatives are intolerant, Janie decided to take on another threat to mankind everywhere...our growing federal deficit? No, it's still Bushitler's fault...the fact that our allies are becoming our enemies? No, they just don't understand the Obamessiah, or they're just racists...Obama's pass on protecting voters? No, the federal cases against ACORN and the dismissal of the case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation is nothing more than a reich-wing fearmongering tactic...the threat she decided to take on was...The Constitution Party. From the website, the party desires to return the federal government to its Constitutional limits (who could oppose that? Apparently, she doesn't...) and restore our laws to its Biblical foundations (...ah, that's what got Janie to blow a gasket). For her, and other liberals, the issue is settled...we have a separation of church and state...and the Founders realized the danger of mixing politics and religion. I beg to differ...

The Founding Fathers, deists though they were, always recognized their religion and formed the government with the backbone of morality. The Founders realized that the faithful could not check their faith at the Capitol steps or the voters booth. Contrary to liberal talking points, the "religious freedom" the Founders advocated were against government forming a state religion and then forcing the electorate to adhere to it, like King Henry VIII and his Act of Supremacy in 1534. There is nothing that I found about the Constitution Party to be objectionable. In fact, many of its platforms are core principles of conservative thought. Many of those who considered themselves "deists" considered themselves Christians, but in the sense of Christianity before it was corrupted by the Council of Trent.

The Constitution Party ensures that it does not desire to transform Amurica into a Christian version of Taliban Afghanistan, though people like Janie overlook that important fact to demonize. It desires to return the nation to the intention of the Founders, with some added features not addressed in the Constitution. It would be hard to argue it wrong to return our nation back to its Constitutional principles, especially in light of the many diatribes by liberals like Janie, who slammed Republicans for allegedly trashing it. Christians are not like Islamists who desire to force their religion upon the masses. Perhaps those who are so anti-Christian have their religions mixed up...

Christians know that not all are going to be Christian, they have accepted that as fact. I believe it's the same thing with liberals...they're problems are only with themselves. They have a problem with the feelings they project onto others...As for me, I tend not to align with any one political party. I choose the candidate based on their positions, whether they be Republican, Democrat, or Independent. I also believe that I am not alone in my thinking.